3 ms·

I gather from this thread that LA has a lot of stadiums now.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
It is the second biggest city in the country. And technically, many of them are not in the City of LA, but the LA Metro Area.
- grogenaut 8y ago
  People seem to forget, LA somehow lost their previous teams. Maybe people in LA have better options than just getting drunk and burning up a Sunday and don't attend much. I've noticed USC fills their stadium only when they're spectacular. Whereas other teams across the country fill it up when they're only OK (most of the big 10). Anecdotal but probably understandable via stats.
majormajor 8y ago
The outlier here is that the new Rams/Chargers stadium (and retail/residential/office that it includes) in LA is privately funded. (Actually, CA in general doesn't spend as much on stadiums as other places have been.) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-20170113-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-201... >For decades, Angelenos went without a hometown NFL team in part because they were notoriously loath to spend taxes on one. Rams owner Stan Kroenke, worth $7.4 billion according to Forbes, made the league's return to Los Angeles possible because he was game to use his own money to develop the $2.66-billion Inglewood stadium that, starting in 2019, will be home base of his team and the Chargers. >Inglewood will ultimately pay the project an estimated $60 million as a reimbursement for the development of roadwork, utilities and public parks on the site of the property. >James T. Butts Jr., mayor of Inglewood, said he would not have agreed to a new NFL stadium if it required fans to chip in. >"From our first talks, we made it clear that was not something we were going to do," Butts said. "We wanted a model that basically insulated the city from the buffeting winds of both the economy and ticket sales, and we have that now." It's an open question who it'll work out for: both the Chargers and Rams were in LA before, before leaving for perceived greener pastures. The Rams' owners seem to be hedging their bets this time with the multi-purpose real-estate nature of the stadium. But will STL or SD really be that badly off? We'll see if they end up spending money in the future to get a team back... LA didn't, though.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Really though, he was able to privately finance this one because he screwed St. Louis with the costs of another stadium.
bmelton 8y ago
Presently, the Chargers and Rams are sharing the old Coliseum stadium, similar to how the New York Giants and New York Jets share a stadium in New Jersey.
- jonwachob91 8y ago
  The Chargers and Rams do not presently share a stadium. They have proposed to fund a joint stadium, but that is in the future. Presently, the Rams play at the Coliseum and the Chargers play at Stub Hub Center (LA Galaxy soccer specific Stadium with seating for 27,000).
  - bmelton 8y ago
    Oh. Thanks for the correction!

It is the second biggest city in the country. And technically, many of them are not in the City of LA, but the LA Metro Area.

grogenaut 8y ago
People seem to forget, LA somehow lost their previous teams. Maybe people in LA have better options than just getting drunk and burning up a Sunday and don't attend much. I've noticed USC fills their stadium only when they're spectacular. Whereas other teams across the country fill it up when they're only OK (most of the big 10). Anecdotal but probably understandable via stats.

majormajor 8y ago

The outlier here is that the new Rams/Chargers stadium (and retail/residential/office that it includes) in LA is privately funded. (Actually, CA in general doesn't spend as much on stadiums as other places have been.) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-20170113-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-201... >For decades, Angelenos went without a hometown NFL team in part because they were notoriously loath to spend taxes on one. Rams owner Stan Kroenke, worth $7.4 billion according to Forbes, made the league's return to Los Angeles possible because he was game to use his own money to develop the $2.66-billion Inglewood stadium that, starting in 2019, will be home base of his team and the Chargers. >Inglewood will ultimately pay the project an estimated $60 million as a reimbursement for the development of roadwork, utilities and public parks on the site of the property. >James T. Butts Jr., mayor of Inglewood, said he would not have agreed to a new NFL stadium if it required fans to chip in. >"From our first talks, we made it clear that was not something we were going to do," Butts said. "We wanted a model that basically insulated the city from the buffeting winds of both the economy and ticket sales, and we have that now." It's an open question who it'll work out for: both the Chargers and Rams were in LA before, before leaving for perceived greener pastures. The Rams' owners seem to be hedging their bets this time with the multi-purpose real-estate nature of the stadium. But will STL or SD really be that badly off? We'll see if they end up spending money in the future to get a team back... LA didn't, though.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Really though, he was able to privately finance this one because he screwed St. Louis with the costs of another stadium.

bmelton 8y ago

Presently, the Chargers and Rams are sharing the old Coliseum stadium, similar to how the New York Giants and New York Jets share a stadium in New Jersey.

jonwachob91 8y ago
The Chargers and Rams do not presently share a stadium. They have proposed to fund a joint stadium, but that is in the future. Presently, the Rams play at the Coliseum and the Chargers play at Stub Hub Center (LA Galaxy soccer specific Stadium with seating for 27,000).
- bmelton 8y ago
  Oh. Thanks for the correction!